Main Objection To The Proposed “Marriage Laws (Amended) Bill, 2010, As Introduced In Rajya Sabha

Dharna against IrBM

We had already submitted our objections and suggestions to parliamentary committee, but the

present Law Minister totally ignored the same and even tampered the original bill even worse by

making new amendments, so we request to either make the Law Gender Neutral and respect

natural justice or roll back the same immediately as this will became a “extraction law” than giving any justice to people.

A. The Bill must be gender neutral, if a wife has contributions to husband’s property (movable or immovable), any property made by wife (movable or immovable) also has husband’s contributions. Even in USA-Texas Law the word used is “Spouse” instead of wife or husband. One sided law will create disharmony, increase crime and add huge number of litigations in the Court for property disputes.

B. The benefit of divorce can’t be equal to married relationship, as the obligations and responsibilities after divorce change for either of the spouse. In 2010, even China Supreme Court amended the law to do property division goto the spouse who made it. Such a law made havoc in court cases and people started using the marriage as property earning business than love or care for each others.

C. Proposed Amendment: 13D (1) “Where the wife is the respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C, she may oppose the grant of decree on ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to her and that in all circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage…..”

Our View:

Right to oppose should be given to both parties. The word wife to be replaced by the word “spouse”.

The line to be added: The Divorce degree will be awarded only when all other cases against each other are quashed or withdrawn and in future no cases can be filed against each other by either spouse. Otherwise the basic purpose of this law to reduce the litigation will be defeated.

Like: There are other provisions of maintenance HMA 24/25, CrPC 125, PWDVA 2005, adding another provision is duplication and a tool to harass the husband There will be rampant misuse of this section to harass the husbands.

As per 13C (2), if she is separated for 3 years, she would have already approached the Court in case of financial difficulties. Another attempt to extort husbands (as in 498a and DV Act) is being done.

Our Proposal: “The respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to them and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage. All cases pending, between the parties would also be quashed before granting divorce under Section 13C”. All case like 498A, CrPC 125, PWDVA 2005 and other litigations should be quashed before the grant of decree.”

Without prejudice to any customs or usage or any other law for the time being in force, in any proceeding under section 13C, at the time of passing of the degree , the court may on a petition made by wife order that the husband shall pay for her and children as defined in section 13E, as financial support such gross sum or share in the movable or immovable residential property towards settlement of property rights as the court may deem it to be just and equitable and any such payment shall be secured , if necessary , by change on the immovable residential property of the husbands.

Our View:

The word wife and husband to be replaced by “spouse” which is followed all over world. Even in USA-Texas the same is “spouse”.

If this law passed as per above, for example the wife have 1000 Crores (even if it is given by the husband only) and husband have only 10 lacks, but as per law, her 1000 Crores can’t be touched, but the husband’s 10 lacks will be divided and given to wife. This is absolute injustice and against any Principle of natural justice of the world.

The property accrued before marriage, either spouse should not have any right. As there is no contribution of the other spouse on that, the contribution should be considered only on the property made after marriage and any claim to others property to be allowed if only the marriage obligation is minimum 10 years.

So Our Proposal: 13F and 28D: (Special provisions relating to disposal of property accrued during subsistence of marriage in proceedings under 13C)

“Without prejudice to any customs or usage or any other law for the time being in force, in any proceeding under section 13C, at the time of passing of the degree , the court may on a petition made by “either spouse” order that the “other spouse” shall pay for “her/his” and children as defined in section 13E, as financial support such gross sum or share in the movable or immovable residential property towards settlement of property rights as the court may deem it to be just and equitable “considering the duration of marriage” and any such payment shall be secured, if necessary, by change on the immovable residential property of the other party. For any claim each others spouses residential property, the minimum marriage duration should be considered as 10 years.

E. The law should be equal and must follow the principle of natural justice and stop making assumption that all women born in Raja Harish Chandra family and all men are born in criminal family.

The person seeking Divorce on “No Fault” ground, should not get the same benefit, who seeks the divorce by proving other party’s fault. A person should not be punished for “No Fault” in the name of easy divorce nor his/her hard earned accrued property, movable or immovable, should be grabbed under any such biased law, which will create injustice and will create more disharmony in society which in result will increase the crime in India over all.

Protest to rollback amendments of Marriage Act

Amit Deshpande, New Delhi

Men’s rights group protested today, demanding a rollback of the amendments in Hindu Marriage Act. The group received huge support nationwide.The groups protested at Jantar Mantar protesting against the draconian nature of the clause for new grounds of divorce, ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’ to be introduced.

A group of about 3000 strong crowd was involved in the protest. Teams from various cities from across the nation participated in the peaceful protest. The activists displayed deep anguish against the government for the recently introduced amendments, terming them as anti-male. Amid cheers and support for the demands of rollback of the amendments, activists appealed to the government to consider the plight of men and issues related to them. They highlighted that more than 62000 married men commit suicide every year and all their suicides are considered to be due to economic reasons. In that case, stressing them more for financial reasons by awarding half of their properties to separating wives, without them being able to contest it would only increase the no. of people committing suicides.

Activist, Ankush Verma from Save Family Foundation, Delhi questioned the contribution of wives, in the claim of women’s organisation in the pre-marital property acquired by the husband. He also drew attention to the fact that a husband is legally bound to take care of his parents also and awarding half of his property to his wife, irrespective of his other responsibilities like welfare of parents or siblings, amounts to lack of vision on the part of the law-framers.

Mens groups protest Mge Amendment Act

Amit Deshpande, New Delhi/Pune

Men’s rights group activists from all over India will assemble today at Jantar Mantar to highlight the inherent flaws in the Bill passed by the Cabinet amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under the new law - passed by the Cabinet and awaiting to be cleared in the Rajya Sabha - new grounds of divorce are being introduced under the clause ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’. Men’s rights groups say, the nature of the law being introduced is at the root of their protest.

An activist Amol Kurhe from Men’s rights Association, Pune explains, “The new law wants to award 50% of the husband’s property to his wife at the time of divorce. This is irrespective of the wife’s financial status, educational background or ability to earn, directly in contradiction of Supreme Court judgements. This new law does not even consider the duration of conjugal relationship between the couples, thereby leaving loopholes for misuse of law. This is a law favoring the Gold Diggers.”

Another activist, law-student Rukma Chary from Save Indian Family, Bangalore said, “The new law will not allow a husband to contest a petition for divorce filed against him by his wife. While, if a husband files a case, the wife can contest the petition stating financial hardships. This is not only a departure from the recent progressive trend of viewing offences with a gender neutral stance, it is also against the tenets of natural justice in a civilized world. Even terrorists are given a chance to contest petitions against them, but the new law wont give that opportunity to law-abiding citizens.’

The groups are demanding a rollback of the ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’ clause in the present condition. They have appealed the law-makers to intervene to take corrective measures.

Representatives of Men’s organization from all over India are gathering at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on August 18th to protest against the Amendment of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage(IRBM). Chetan an activist associated with Save family organization told that government is all set to pass a law that will simply disempower husbands from owning their own hard earned property in the event of a divorce. And it would apply blindly, like a formula on all marriages. Government is neither ready to disclose amended clauses in the bill, nor ready for a dialogue with men’s rights activists to consider the rights and interests of husbands in the law. He said this mass protest is against unconstitutional, gender-biased and anti-male law making in India.

Sharing matrimonial property is one of the divorce-related clauses proposed in the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which seeks to amend parts of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. ‘Irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ could become a new ground for divorce, women could get matrimonial property rights and the six-month cooling period before a divorce would no longer be mandatory in cases of mutual consent.

The response to these proposed amendments by Women’s Organisation, Men’s Organisations , Lawyers all have given mixed . Some Lawyers have condemned the removing of the six month cooling period before a divorce but some have welcomed it saying there is no point in reconciling period for some marriages which are doomed from the beginning.

However Men’s Rights activists are having serious reservations. According to them the “irretrievable breakdown” ground is a disruptive change to the Family Law in India. Irretrievable breakdown changes the terms of divorce from a “fault” basis to a “no-fault” basis. That means either of the two adults in a marriage can unilaterally terminate it for any reason they please. Its consequences on society and family-life are far-reaching because it changes the incentives to stay within a marriage.

Many liberal democracies consider “irreconcilable differences” as a ground for no-fault divorce. But no-fault divorce is also the primary reason for the high divorce rate in those countries. Amit , another Men’s Rights activist told that the government has to answer many questions before it thinks of introducing such amendments. He said proposed amendments are applicable only to Hindus and leave out minority communities. If laws are made regarding women’s empowerment and property rights, women of all religions should be considered. A woman can oppose the Irretrievable Breakdown petition but man has no such rights. Isn’t this a proposal drafted with an intent to favour only women. Where is gender equality.

Further he questioned during divorce, under what rights wife is eligible for share in the property purchased by man before marriage. There can be cases where a woman enters matrimony eyeing property of the entire man’s family, files Irretrievable Breakdown petition and then walks away with 50% of it and without opposition. Amit also questioned the agenda of WCD members and Brinda Karat who are spearheading such amendments. He asked If a poor man has no house at all how will the “abala-naari” of Ms Karat find a home . So what is the ultimate aim of this provision.

Amit however had a few suggestions to the government. He said this law needs to be gender neutral. Replace “woman” with “Spouse”. Allow division of property only if the marriage is more than 10 years old. Exclude residential property if the woman has not made any contribution to it. Do not allow any educated woman to invoke these provisions as she is certainly capable of working. The division of all properties should be in proportion to the salary that they have both earned during the subsistence of marriage. If the same woman remarries will or won’t the law return whatever she has taken from her 1st husband has to be clarified. And lastly he told the law should clearly define guidelines for property distribution. It must not be left to judges’ discretion.

GETTY IMAGES1 DAY AGOIndian husbands shout slogans during a protest in New Delhi on August 18, 2012 against the amendments in the Marriage Bill which legally recognises a wife’s right to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage. Hundreds of men demanded that the government to roll back the Marriage Law Bill which proposes to introduce a policy of automatic property annexation from men in the name of No Fault Divorce.

New Delhi, August 18

If passed by Parliament, this Bill will only make men lose their hard-earned assets and property to wives in case of a break-up, pointed out men rights activists during a protest at Jantar Mantar here today. They demanded a complete rollback of the amended divorce legislation in its present form.

In the proposed Bill to balance the inclusion of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" after amendments in the extant laws--the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, while a husband cannot object to the petition filed by a wife vis-à-vis the benefits enjoyed by wives, the husbands' assets and not his liabilities are considered for distribution, the same is not applicable for women's possessions.

This has caused a lot of resentment in men activists and over 350 such men, victims of misuse of dowry and domestic violence laws, gathered here today to protest under the banner of Save Family Foundation (SFF).

In the name of liberalisation of divorce laws, they have been robbed of their right to parity, with biases standing pronounced on several counts, the activists said while urging for a gender-neutral approach by replacing the term wife in the act with "spouse" as has been done in several parts of the world.

Accompanied by them, SFF member Ritwik Bisaria said, "In the guise of the new act, the government is funding property business. The government is biased as the wife walks away with her possessions along with her husband's assets even after a day of marriage notwithstanding the men's responsibilities towards his old parents and other dependents in the family."

Equating the law to a property contract that a man signs for life while wife runs away with a greater say, even in matters of the custody of children, they expressed concern that the amended law will turn the marriage into a business.

"We had submitted our objections and suggestions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee earlier, but the government overruled our concerns and brought this draconian Bill. Protests are also being held in many other parts of the country and even in London where the activists protested in front of the Indian embassy," remarked Ritwik.

"The 'no fault divorce law', basically a provision in the US' divorce law which allows a couple to decide on ending their marriage, is anti-male which will force them to take several rounds of the courts to fight 498A, Domestic Violence Act or CrPC 125 or child custody for years while women can keep off the court proceedings," the activists added.

======================================================

Seeking ‘equality’ with women, men protest marriage law bill

New Delhi, Aug 19 , 2012 DHNS:

Several men and women from different groups demanded a rollback of Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which proposes to introduce automatic property annexation from men.

This amendment will recognise a wife’s right to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage. Men who are going through the divorce process demand that the word ‘husband’ in this amendment clause should be replaced with ‘spouse’ so both parties may have a right to oppose. The Union Cabinet has approved the draft Marriage Laws (Amendment), Bill, 2010, likely to be tabled in Parliament soon.

Several men’s rights groups are opposing these “women-centric” amendments in the Marriage Law, as they are not happy with the idea of parting with their property after divorce.

“We had submitted some suggestions to the Law Minister and the parliamentary committee as well but they did not take them into consideration. That is why we decided to oppose the bill,” said Swarup Sarkar, founder member of Save Family Foundation.

“The financial benefit should be linked with the number of years a couple is married for. According to it, a husband cannot oppose the wife’s allegations,” he added.

Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Bangalore-based Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting aid the bill does not deal with issues like custody of children and visitation rights.

“It is based on the flawed presumption that the child is best taken care of by the mother. But children are going to be major losers if this bill is passed in the absence of a father,” he said.

======================================================

Activists to Protest Against Marital Law Amendment Bill

New Delhi: A group of child rights and social activists seeking equal rights for men and women and gender neutral marital laws will hold a day-long protest in Delhi Aug 18, an activist said Thursday.

“The protest will be held at Jantar Mantar against the amendments in the marriage bill which recognize a wife’s right to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage,” Bangalore-based CRISP (Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting) founder and president Kumar V. Jahgirdar said.

The union cabinet has approved the Marriage Law (Amendment Bill 2010) which will be tabled in the ongoing monsoon session of parliament.

“The bill does not deal with issues like custody of children and visitation rights. It’s based on the flawed presumption that the child is best taken care by the mother only.”

“Children are going to be major losers if this bill is passed as absence of father will hamper their welfare,” said Jahgirdar

A number of men’s rights groups are opposing ‘women-centric’ amendments in the Marriage Law, as in case of divorce men would have to part with their property.

CRISP, a non-government organization with more than 2,500 members, is also demanding shared parenting and joint custody of children as a rule in divorce or separation cases.

-IANS

======================================================

Hindu Marriage Act amendments draw flak

|

The recently-cleared amendments to the marriage laws by the Cabinet, which allow equal share of residential property to wife and children, has not gone down well with NGOs as about 40 such organisations from all over India have decided to protest against the new divorce bill next week.

If passed, the amended bill will give women a clearly-defined share in their husband’s immovable property, including that acquired before marriage. As per the recent amendments, a wife would now be eligible to oppose the husband’s plea for divorce under the new irretrievable breakdown of marriage clause, the husband on the other hand will not have such a right if the wife moves the court on the same grounds.

“This is total injustice and against any natural justice system of the world. The property accrued before marriage, either spouse should not have any right, as there is no contribution of the other spouse to that, the contribution to be considered only on the property made after marriage and any claim to other’s property to be allowed if only the marriage obligation is more than 10 years,” said a senior representative from Save Family Foundation.

While, the new amendments have already received flak from the BJP, many organisations working for the cause of men have also submitted their objections to a Parliament committee. Expressing that this the new amendments (if passed) will create disharmony, huge litigation in courts for property disputes, increase of crime, NGOs have decided to protest against the proposed amendments at Jantar Mantar next week.

According to another proposed amendment — 13D (1) — where the wife is the respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13C, she may oppose the grant of decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to her and that in all circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage. The NGOs say that the right to “oppose” should be given to both the parties.

======================================================

‘Bill women-centric’, activists plan protest for equal marital laws

New Delhi, Aug 16, 2012, IANS:

A group of child rights and social activists seeking equal rights for men and women as well as gender neutral marital laws will hold a day-long protest in the Capital on Saturday, an activist said.

“The protest will be held at Jantar Mantar against the amendments in the marriage Bill, which recognise a wife’s right to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage,” said Kumar V Jahgirdar, president of Bangalore-based non-government organisation.

The union Cabinet has approved the Marriage Law Amendment Bill 2010, which will be tabled in the ongoing monsoon session of parliament.

“The Bill does not deal with issues like custody of children and visiting rights. It is based on the flawed presumption that the child is best taken care by the mother only,” added Jahgirdar.

“Children are going to be the losers if this Bill is passed as absence of father will hamper their welfare,” Jahgirdar said.

A number of men’s rights groups are opposing ‘women-centric’ amendments in the marriage law, like in case of divorce men would have to part with their property.

Jahgirdar added that they are demanding shared parenting and joint custody of children as a rule in divorce or separation case.

======================================================

Indian Men Protest Against Divorce Law Amendment

ID:1395045

01/16

Caption

Protesters at a sit-in in New Delhi, India, against the Marriage Law Amendment (Draft) Bill, which they claim will entitle a wife to 50 per cent of a husband's wealth after divorce. They are opposing the quickie divorce that the new law provides.

Next

Nearly a thousand men from across India converged in New Delhi to protest against a proposed bill that seeks to provide fifty per cent of a husband's family wealth to the wife in case of divorce. It also seeks to provide a fast divorce to a couple.

Nearly a thousand men from across India converged in New Delhi to protest against a proposed bill that seeks to provide fifty per cent of a husband's family wealth to the wife in case of divorce.

The men, who came from various organisations and NGOs, are protesting against what they call the 'No Fault Divorce Law' which they say allows for a fast divorce even if one of the spouse does not want a divorce. The protesters fear that if the amendments are passed by the Indian Parliament, then most men will become bankrupt.

The biggest grievance of the protesters was that if the man wants divorce, the courts as well as the wife oppose it but if the wife wants one the divorce will be granted.

The proposed law has been given many names by the protesters. It is also called the 'Irretrievable breakdown of marriage' (IrBM) as well as the 'Gold Diggers Law,' as it will enrich women.

The men's rights activists demanded that the Law Ministry should roll back the amendments as the Hindu Marriage Act is gender neutral. They also wanted that children must be given access to both biological parents in case of divorce or separation.

The protesters demanded that the government bring down the cost of litigation for couples in divorce proceedings.

======================================================

AGITATION AT JANTAR- MANTAR FOR SAVE FAMILY

New Delhi : SAVE FAMILY FOUNDATION already submitted our objection and suggestions to parliament committee, but the present law minister totally ignore the same and even tamper the original bill even worse by making new amended, so foundation made agitation on Jantar- Mantar.

DAMAN has been a part of it and in fact, Manuj Gupta was the Anchor of the Program and it was great pleasure to state that the Director of the Film “498A-The Wedding Gift” and India’s Most Wanted Serial Anchor, Mr. Suhaib Ilyasi was also present in the event. A Memorandum was also send to the Prime Minister and the President. Other Members from DAMAN were Mr.Anupam Dubey, Pradeep Kumar Bajpai, Arvind Kushwaha, Manish Gupta, Abhishek Shrivastava.

Manuj gupta of DAMAN demanded that The Bill must be gender neutral, if a wife have contribution to husbands property( movable or immovable) , any property made by wife ( movable or immovable) also have husbands contribution, so only Even in USA-Txas law the word used “Spouse” instead of wife or husband, other wise one sided law will create a disharmony, increase of crime, huge litigation in court for property disputes.

Foundation told their View that Right to oppose should be given to both parties The word wife to be replaced by the word “spouse”.The line to be added: The Divorce degree will be awarded only when all other cases against each others had been quashed or withdrawn and in future no cases will be filed against each other spouse. Otherwise the basic purpose of this law to reduce the litigation will be defeated.

======================================================

Activists protest against ‘flawed’ divorce Bill

New Delhi: Aug 20 , 2012 DH News Service

Child rights and social activists protested at Jantar Mantar recently against implementation of the proposed ‘No Fault Divorce Law’ which the Cabinet approved few months back.

Child Rights and Shared Parenting (CRISP), an NGO which works on the serious effects of parental alienation of children due to single parent families on account of divorce or separation has demanded that the bill should be gender neutral like the Hindu Marriage Act.

CRISP members expressed concerns on the proposed amendment of marriage law bill and 'no fault divorce' and recommended certain change to the proposed bill in the interest of minor children to the committee set to make the bill.

“We had made it clear to the committee that the present bill does not deal with matters like custody of the children, visitation rights etc. The bill is based on the flawed presumption that the child is best taken care by the mother only,” said Kumar V Jahgirdar, president, CRISP.

According to Jahgirdar, India does not need the concept of ‘No Fault Divorce Law’.

“If the law is enacted, then men or women will get divorce even if their spouses do not want it. With the proposed bill, in name of use of Section 15(3) of the Constitution of India, Section 15(1) is under complete violation when it does not allow one gender (male) to contest his own case. The Bill curtails the fundamental Rights to Equality before Law as granted by Constitution to every citizen,” he said.

The members demanded that children must be given access to both parents in case of divorce or separation.

“According to the proposed bill, the husband cannot challenge the divorce petition filed by his wife, on the grounds of financial hardship which is a gross violation and against the principal of natural justice,” added Jahgirdar.